DaveR

If you look back to the very beginning of the thread, two quite different things were being suggested. The more serious was that the police were not investigating properly because of the race and/or class of the missing person. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this was true, and it was an unhelpful and divisive accusation to make. The other point was about media coverage. The police were also criticised for their approach to this, and again that doesn't seem to me to be well-founded or helpful. In any case the police will have to decide whether the investigation is best served by a high media profile or not, and it is difficult to criticise their approach in this case. I note in the Bristol case the wide media coverage has not been encouraged by the police. As to the approach of the media themselves, they are driven by news values that generally bear no relation to fairness, equality, or any other noble idea, and I'm surprised that anyone expects any different.

"They say hard work never killed anyone but I figure, why take the chance?" Ronald Reagan

I think Moxons only stock fish from British waters. Tiger prawns are mainly farmed in SE Asia and imported. It's not surprising they don't stock them. Moron.

Busted!

Good news is not news. Also, when people post very positive experiences of local shops etc., lots of other people get suspicious and sarcastic. I do think there's a lot of complaining going on though. Don't know why. On a positive note, I had dinner at Indian Mischief the other night, and it was great. Service friendly if not the speediest, but I don't mind that, and the food was excellent and the bill reasonable. (I don't work there).

Senor chevalier is bang on. If parking authorities adopt policies that are consistent with the basic purpose of parking regulation i.e. to keep traffic flowing then they can expect public support. Where policies are designed to maximise revenue, regardless of the impact on traffic flow, people will moan, and with good cause.

There are plenty of shops (in ED and elsewhere) that don't patronise their patrons, and then publish it all on their blog.

Self righteous retailer + self righteous customers = East Dulwich harmony. I don't shop in G&B and I'm even less likely to now.

"But my purpose in starting the thread was .... oh, wait, I've explained that several times already" I still don't understand your purpose in starting (and perpetuating) this thread. You are obsessed with the case, that much is clear (that's not a criticism, by the way). You are determined that everybody should recognise, if not the accuracy, then the validity of your point of view. However, there does not appear to be any other point you are trying to make. I should make it clear that I have zero interest in the specific facts of the McCann case, although the surrounding arguments about parental responsibility are kind of interesting.

It's a shame that KP can't resist putting his own spin on the story - "I did it for the good of English Cricket" - because most of what he says is positive and reasonably sensible. One of the most sensible comments from journalists that I've seen was that Strauss and Flower's most significant achievement has been to get the whole team working together without trying to impose too much conformity on players who are naturally very different characters. Pietersen can be an arse but at least under the current leadership he's a team player.

Sue, with respect, I don't think you've answered either point. You want people to know more about the case, but to what end? This not about exposing corruption in high places, or excesses of state power, or a threat to freedom and democracy - it's just one case. It seems the true answer is that which you have just acknowledged - even your family recognise that it is an obsession, although they may have put it somewhat more politely. On the second point, you've just shifted the ground, but the basic argument remains - you leave a child in circumstances where they might choke, fall etc. (chances of fatal consequences still pretty remote, in truth) - can this sensibly be equated, in terms of culpability, with actually carrying out an abduction? Merry Christmas!

Despite all the cr@p, I'm finding this thread quite interesting in two respects. Firstly, I'm really trying to understand the motivation for starting it; I can understand a desire to put info into the public domain where there is an important wider issue, but I can't see one here. I think that's why many people have responded negatively - what's the point of this thread (and the forums that apparently exist which are devoted solely to discussing the case) other than to be prurient/sensationalist/conspiracy theorist? Secondly, the idea that the McCanns are responsible even if their child was abducted by a stranger, because of their 'reckless' behaviour, seems to me very representative of a certain strand of current thinking i.e. that the failure to prevent harm occuring (even where the risk is very remote) is to be equated with directly causing harm, the only difference being the degree of culpability. In some cases this might be more persuasive e.g. psychiatric authorities decide to release an individual who is clearly dangerous, but in this case it looks like sh!te, frankly. "Even if they didn't kill their daughter (accidentally or on purpose) they left her alone and that's almost as bad". Really??

Haynes Manual - baby from the publishers of car maintenance guides

UK power networks are responsible for the network so doesn't matter who you pay your bill to.

The problem with the typical "I grew up on a council estate.." mentality is that it becomes tempting to assume that anyone who didn't was either (a) born into a world of privilege, and/or (b) is less able and hard-working than them - see above. The UK is far more meritocratic now than it ever has been, and the idea that dim public school boys can still breeze into top jobs in law, banking, foreign office etc. is outdated. That having been said, it is still far from being a level playing field, so I'm not going to be too critical of anyone who has 'pulled themselves up' and wants to make the point. But not everybody who went to public school is a t0sser (I didn't go to public school, and hopefully I'm not either, tho' Brendan may disagree)

Don't know about trains, but 63 is running from bottom of Rye lane into town.

"DaveR you are completely right about that scenario - but the question "How are you?" is often simply an extention of "Good morning." It's the addition to the initial greeting, a way of extending verbal niceties. Unless someone sits you down with a cup of tea and asks genuinely after you, I'd usually just take it that way and not feel dishonest you respond with a happy platitude." I agree, but I would also say that very often people do not want to hear the unvarnished truth even when it might appear that they do, and most people are aware of this (consciously or otherwise). Q: Tell me the truth, do you really like my fiancee? Honest answer: I hate him, we all do, and we suspect that if he's not already cheating on you it's only a matter of time. Appropriate answer: Not the above This might be a bit more controversial, but I am firmly of the opinion that there is no benefit or honour in telling the truth in that scenario - sometimes people have to find out the truth for themselves (or not - maybe we're all wrong). I should add that I have been accused of being quite frank (which I understand perfectly well means rude and/or tactless) but I have learned to be less so. On the upside, people have learned not to come to me for advice/reassurance on sensitive topics, which is a relief.

Where you have a responsibility or a duty to be honest, you must be. However, there are many situations where you don't and even where the expectation is that you won't necessarily be completely honest. Q: "How are you?" SAMPLE HONEST ANSWER "I'm really down, and not sure about the direction my life is taking. I'm not sure about my relationship, I think I have unresolved feelings of guilt from the death of my dog. I also have a persistent pain in my left knee which never seems to go away completely - I even had a dream that my leg fell off." APPROPRIATE/EXPECTED ANSWER: "Oh, fine really, mustn't grumble, you know...." This applies to the vast majority of questions that people ask you about (a) you and (b) them.

Sorry, couldn't help it. Anyway, I have a few friends with kids at Heber, it's not perfect, but I don't know anyone who has a really negative view of the school overall. My kids are at Goodrich, and I'd say the same thing. Neither of them are outstandingly good - not worth moving house to be near, in my view - but good enough.

"Fair enough and I apologise that I clearly misunderstood" = didn't read it properly before venting with your own prejudices

Follow Huguenot's directions up to Plough Lane. Turn left into Haydon's Road, right at the bottom into Merton High Street (A238), follow the signs to the A3. Then M25 to M3 - generally not too bad on that section.

The whole report is a scenario, and one of the elements is an assumption that oil demand from the OECD will fall. I'm assuming that the basis for that assumption is as strong as the other underlying assumptions (otherwise it wouldn't be in the report), and it suggests that this: "It's a shame that the major investment in these technologies will be reactive rather than preemptive" may not be entirely accurate. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't expect big oil companies to sit around like turkeys waiting for Christmas. BP It may be tempting to dismiss this, but if BP see a future profit in wind power or biofuels they will want to be in a position to exploit it. It's not as attractive a message as 'everybody get together to save the planet' but it's more dependable.

It's easy to miss this bit, which is pretty important: "demand in the OECD falls by over 6 mb/d" So that's over a billion people (and rising), representing essentially the entire developed world, reducing their dependence on oil, and the level of reduction is not insignificant - 6% of total global demand. To me that suggests that the situation is serious but not necessarily catastrophic, because at least some of the means of reducing demand for oil are already known and in play.

charliex2, I was just responding to your somewhat hyperbolic post (the one with the toilet pic) A 40% cut in teaching funds probably = a reduction in the number of degree places to the position of about 10 years ago, although in practice it will be implemented in a number of different ways. It's harsh, but HE is an area that expanded rapidly, and although spending didn't rise as fast as student numbers, it did go up. You can argue for a smaller cut, but where should the axe fall instead? Or you can argue for no cuts (like the student demonstrators) and pretend that it's all the banks fault, and that there's no such thing as a sovereign debt crisis.

EU migration is only a problem if you assume that the effect is to take jobs that UK citizens are willing to do and/or depress wages. They seem like logical assumptions but in fact the evidence, whether anecdotal or statistical, is very thin.